PPSh 41 build--Shotgun News

J. Savoie said:
There is one thing that puzzles me:

As C/As were accepted as "not being readily convertible", WHY couldn't we legally just change the receiver and have it accepted as semiautomatic civilian versions? The mechanism IS already accepted by the CFC/RCMP after all, if not the C/As which we would have "traded" the receiver from would have been ordered destroyed. Right? :confused:

New receiver, new serial number and technically it will "never have been" an smg as the saying "Once an SMG, always an SMG" applies to the frame and this is why we can't use the original maghousing on the Semiauto Sten builds as it is considered as the frame.

Or am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

this is a VERY good question

write the rcmp and let us know the answer in a year or never....
 
J. Savoie said:
There is one thing that puzzles me:

As C/As were accepted as "not being readily convertible", WHY couldn't we legally just change the receiver and have it accepted as semiautomatic civilian versions? The mechanism IS already accepted by the CFC/RCMP after all, if not the C/As which we would have "traded" the receiver from would have been ordered destroyed. Right? :confused:

New receiver, new serial number and technically it will "never have been" an smg as the saying "Once an SMG, always an SMG" applies to the frame and this is why we can't use the original maghousing on the Semiauto Sten builds as it is considered as the frame.

Or am I missing something here?
Click to expand...
I'd like the answer to this stupid law's reasoning too, but i'd also like to win the lottery. Why did people burn the loners and hermits of society in claims of them having supernatural evil powers (witches)? Laws can just be stupid sometimes, and unless you are in a position of power and actually care about the subject, these things do not get updated and "modernized" lol! I personally cannot differentiate the difference between an original receiver sufficiently modified never to accept full auto parts, and a newly made receiver of identical specs, also modified to never be able to accept FA parts. Aside from the history of the receiver, the two should be identical, but for some reason are regulated differently.
 
Michael J said:
Aside from the history of the receiver, the two should be identical, but for some reason are regulated differently.
Click to expand...

It's because the government has banned all machine guns. Make a new semi auto only gun ( receiver) and it's a newly made semi auto only, never was a machine gun.

Don't blame the CFC for this.
 
wallflower We don't blame anybody. The question was only :

If C/As are accepted in their present form as NOT being easily converted to automatic, shouldn't the same parts be simply swapped altogether on a newly made frame and accepted as semiauto only? After all, this would be the case and the design already accepted or the C/A where the parts would be from, would have been ordered destroyed as being easily converted to automatic.

So, the C/A complies with the law? The new frame and the SAME PARTS should also and the result would not be a C/A anymore but a simple semiauto civilian version.

NOW: where does it catch?
 
J. Savoie said:
wallflower

If C/As are accepted in their present form as NOT being easily converted to automatic, shouldn't the same parts be simply swapped altogether on a newly made frame and accepted as semiauto only?
Click to expand...

Yes I think they should, why not ask them ? it costs nothing !

Here are the email addresses of the top people in each section that deal with this kind of thing.

George Fraser CD, SSM Firearms Technical Analysis Section
george.fraser@cfc-cafc.gc.ca


William Etter Canadian Firearms Program Senior Firearms Technologist
Firearms Reference Table
William.Etter@rcmp-grc.gc.ca

Let us know what they say.
 
Last edited:
wallflower said:
Yes I think they should, why not ask them ? it costs nothing !

Here are the email addresses of the top people in each section that deal with this kind of thing.

George Fraser CD, SSM Firearms Technical Analysis Section
george.fraser@cfc-cafc.gc.ca


William Etter Canadian Firearms Program Senior Firearms Technologist
Firearms Reference Table
William.Etter@rcmp-grc.gc.ca

Let us know what they say.
Click to expand...


write away you will never get a reply and even IF you do the it likely wont clarify anything
 
Wallflower, lets keep posts on this thread reserved to the contribution of a semi-automatic ppsh41 rifle. I know i am contributing to the problem of this political junk by making this very post, but we had this issue a few pages back, and seemed to have resolved it. There is no need to fuel this argument again.

I am much more interested in hearing updates on the receiver stamping dye being produced, or other ideas to contribute to the production of a canadian-made home-builder receiver.
 
yes good discussion is needed not trolling for a interweb keyboard war. i have made some progress on the job , and am currently looking for larger material for full sized sizing dies.
 
great pictures. the help out a lot as i dont own one. the drawings i have show the profile incorrectly. i now have better drawings that show the true profile. my test die set is now incorrect, but the design is still solid. i will continue to make the die set with the new profile when the metal comes in.
 
I was checking out weapons guild and they have a section for tool loan out and guess what....
They have a lend-out-able die set like what hedgehog made. The die set looks fairly straight forward... Of course they being in the us ,the die set is for the rear section whereas we would need a die set for the entire receiver, but still it looks quite do-able.
 
contact148 said:
this is a VERY good question

write the rcmp and let us know the answer in a year or never....
Click to expand...

As I did have an answer from Georges Fraser, I paste it here so it might help clear the situation for those of us who might still wonder about the answer.

Sir



Thank you for your request. Simple answer: No.



The Firearms Reference Table screen built for a homemade Sten is based on a homemade frame/receiver (mag-well) as you have indicated, but the tube is from a SAS III Sten Kit, manufactured as semi-auto only.



The legal difference is the origin of the design. In order to have a restricted STEN it must be built from a SAS kit, or if from scratch, completely supported and documented by digital images during the build. Then after the build, the firearm will be inspected by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for compliance.



The Sten you are suggesting would be full auto in its original design, therefore the only class change that could occur would be to a converted auto.



Trust this answers your questions. Should you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.



Regards,

George

George Fraser SSM, C.D.
Canadian Firearms Program / Programme canadienne des armes à feu
Royal Canadian Mounted Police / Gendarmerie royale du Canada
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0R2
george.fraser@cfc-cafc.gc.ca
1 800 731-4000 ext 2073
613-949-6514 | Facsimile / Télécopieur 613-993-5548

This email and any files transmitted with it are privileged, confidential, subject to copyright and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Any unauthorized use, copying, review or disclosure is prohibited under Sec. 7 of the Privacy Act. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this communication in error. Thank you for your assistance and co-operation.
Click to expand...

So, my idea of only switching a new receiver on any C/A is totally rubbish. End of discussion. :(
 
Quote from hedgehog:
im not following what you were trying to do? if you build the receiver yourself its homemade. doesnt matter what you bolt on after that
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking but ...

By Mr Georges Fraser saying, as the example of a Sten Mk2, even if I substituted a new receiver to the original of a Converted Automatic, though the said C/A has been inspected and approved as NOT being easily convertible to full auto, the simple fact that the design altered or not of a C/A was originally made as F/A so a simple swap of the parts over a newly made receiver is a NO-NO. :nest: :bangHead:

Had it been accepted as do-able, the logic could in theory have been stretched to the PPSh41. A simple swap of receiver for a NEW receiver over the rest of the parts of a C/A and presto! A commercial version!

But as I stated above, it just won't work. I wonder, if only a thicker receiver and thinner bolt combo... This way no original bolt could fit unless turned to fit on a lathe. But that's another story. Let's continue to try and find anoter way to build "our" PPSh41s to semiauto only. :slap:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom